Page Comparison

General Information:

• Date and Time: 2019, Jan 14, 10pm~11pm Beijing Time, 9am~10am US Eastern
• Meeting Room: https://zoom.us/j/645982535

Agenda:

• Backlog
• PNFD update
• Policy Draft
• Result of DM discussion regarding alignment with SOL001 task, impact to IM in Dublin

Material:

• Modeling Current Activity Status
• Agreed PNFD Model
• Policy Draft

Minutes:

• Backlog:
• PNFD update:
  • update the figure, need to update the content (swVersionList) according to 2019-1-7's minutes Former user (Deleted)
  • plan to have "final" review next week and call for approval (the process: Approved ONAP Model Governance)
• Policy Draft:
  • scope: the current scope of policy model is ECA type policy, declaritive or intent based policy is FFS; for the whole ONAP, covering both resource and service domain
  • mark attributes not in use as "Future"
  • refinement of the model hasn't been fully post to the wiki (available in papyrus)
  • plan to model "events" as a super class of "VES events" , "policy events", etc.
  • comment:
    • enumerations should not be put in the class diagram
    • how to model the action "sending an event"? Kevin will check with the policy team, the possible way is sending a message (probably an event)
    • the relationship between the policy model with different implementations (imperitive, intent, etc.): to be discussed
    • guarding policy (permissions) could be added
  • Kevin Scaggs would contact with Michela Bevilacqua , policy team and interested people to have a dedicated discussion on the plan for the Dublin release
    • go back to IM call afterwards
    • could check with use case teams (e.g., 5G FM)
• Impact to IM resulting from DM SOL001 alignment discussion:
  • discussed in last week's F2F meeting
  • key findings:
    • ONAP extensions do not have a consistent way
  • recommendation:
    • propose to update IFA011 to align with ONAP, need to decide which extensions are suitable to be proposed to ETSI, which are not (unique need for ONAP)
    • suggest to prepare for the joint meeting of multi-SDOs
  • next step:
    • review the current comparison with IFA011 (Comparison of Current R3 Clean Version with IFA011 v2.5.1), red/orange are differences between ONAP model and IFA011 spec
    • clarify which are needed to go back to ETSI, which are needed for update of the ONAP R3 model Former user (Deleted)
    • suggest to provide rationale for proposal to ETSI
    • ETSI has a F2F in mid-February, suggest member companies to submit proposals and let ETSI give feedback for April's meeting
    • guochuyi  has additional proposals against IFA011 v2.5.1, she plans to have a presentation next week